Radical Islamism and Jihad (05 Aug 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Open Letter to Maulana Firangimahali: Why Do Moderate Ulema Stay Silent When Terrorists Claim - 'Islam Has Never Been A Religion Of Peace, Not Even For A Day'?

By Sultan Shahin, Founding
Editor, New Age Islam

5 August
2016

Janab Maulana
Khalid Rashid Firangimahali Saheb,

I have been watching you on television
channels in the last few days, defending Islam as a religion of peace, calling
the so-called Islamic State “un-Islamic,”, expressing sentiments and opinions
that I entirely agree with. But this has made me wonder why do you and your
fellow ulema keep completely silent when self-styled Khalifa al-Baghdadi and
his followers say repeatedly that “Islam has never been a religion of peace,
not even for a day,” and that “it has always been a religion of war and
conflict.”

I didn’t see you or any other ulema
questioning your Nadwi colleague from Lucknow, the influential Salman Nadwi
when he became the first Indian Muslim alim
(Islamic scholar, singular of ulema) in July 2014 to convey his allegiance to
the same Khalifa, addressing him as Ameer-ul Momineen, leader of the global
Muslim community. No wonder, his name now figures in the list of ulema who have
influenced Indian Muslim youth who have joined and some even migrated to the
so-called Islamic State.

I
didn’t see you questioning the notorious tele-evangelist Dr. Zakir Naik when he
said: “all Muslims should be terrorists” or when he said: “Quran allows Muslims
to have sex with female slaves.” Indeed, you all kept quiet when Naik made
hateful remarks like the following: “People in the west eat pork and hence
behave like pigs. Pigs are the only animals in the world that invite their
friends to have sex with their partners. Westerners also do the same.” Naik has
made insulting other religions in the guise of comparative study or interfaith
dialogue his speciality. But I find almost the entire fraternity of Muslim
ulema coming out in his defence when it was discovered that his discourse
inevitably inspired several people around the world who took to the path of
terrorism.

Worst
of all, you and all other ulema kept quiet when Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi of
Hyderabad asked Muslims to pray for the Islamic State. In a press release
available online he said: “Condemnation of their (Islamic State’s) action may
not be called sagacity and will be considered against the spirit of Islam. …
they have tried to fulfil the dream of a large section of Muslims and their
determination has infused a new life into the concept of Caliphate. Their
announcement (of caliphate) has surpassed Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana
Abul Ala Maududi’s powerful writings and speeches about Caliphate and has
realized the concept practically. … This has sparked a new life in the dormant
political life of Islam and this might have certainly heartened religious
Muslims as more or less after one hundred years Caliphate has come to existent
(sic). In other words, Islamic Caliphate is no longer a concept but seems to
have become a reality.”

Most
disturbing of all is your and other ulema’s complete silence over a seemingly very
well-reasoned, coherent fatwa, citing verses from Quran and narrations of
Hadith, of the Hyderabadi Maulana, seeking to prove that Islam asks beleaguered
Muslims to fight and not sit helplessly when they perceive being under attack
by non-Muslims whom he calls “infidels” and “idol-worshippers” or kafirs and mushriks respectively.

In a booklet entitled “Use of Force in the
light of Quran,” written in response to Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi’s essay
renouncing offensive violence in the name of Islam, Maulana Islahi, says:

The summary of whatever Dr Saheb (Dr Nejatullah Siddiqi) has written is
that … no matter what the flag bearers of Hindutva may do, taking any step
against them or confronting them with the use of force will be wrong from the
point of view of Shariah and harmful for the Muslims.

On Page 10/11, in a chapter entitled “Jihad is not violence,” he says, “In the light of the Quran and
hadith, calling punishment for crime violence is very wrong. It is an
un-Islamic idea. In fact, the punishment that is given for preventing the
criminal from committing crimes is not violence and atrocity but a benevolent
act and a blessing. However, whatever meaning the word ‘violence’ may convey,
calling violence permissible only in two situations by Dr (Nejatullah Siddiqi)
Saheb is also extremely erroneous and is akin to striking a hard blow at the
purpose of the prophethood of the holy Prophet. Please see Surah Tauba,
Chapter 9 of the Quran, verse No. 29:

“And fight against those who do not have faith in God and in the
Day of Judgment and declare haram what God and his prophet have declared halal,
and among those people of the Book do not accept the true faith until they pay
the Jizyah with their own hand and are subdued." (Quran 9: 29)

“In this verse, fight has been ordained against those under three
conditions until they pay jizyah: a) they do not profess faith in God and Day
of Judgment; b) do not accept as haram what God and his prophet have declared
haram; c) do not accept Islam as their religion.”

One of the cornerstones of moderate Islam is the often-quoted verse “La ikraha fiddin,” (Let there be no
compulsion in religion.): Quran 2: 256. But the way Maulana Islahi turns it around is
worth noting. He says: “This does not mean that ahl-e-Kufr, (infidels) should be left totally free on earth with
their un-belief and should not be made accountable. If this were true, what do we mean when we say that the religion of God
has been revealed to dominate the world?

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) with guidance and the religion of
truth (Islam) to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters,
etc.) hate it." (Quran. 9: 33)

“What will this verse mean then and what relevance will the obligation
of jihad have?

“It is the duty (of
Muslims) to struggle for the domination of Islam over false religions and
subdue and subjugate ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk
(infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the duty of the Muslims to
proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to
testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen (religion) God as entrusted with
the Muslims cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If it
were so there would be no need for the battles that were fought.

"And fight them until there is no fitnah (mischief) and [until] the
religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is
Seeing of what they do." (Quran. 8:39)

“Jihad has been made obligatory to make the Deen (religion) dominate and
to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in view the importance of this task, the
significance of Jihad in the name of God has been stressed in the Quran and
Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been revealed to Muslims about
fighting all the Kuffar (infidels).

“United, fight the polytheists as they fight against you.” (Quran. 9:36)

On Page 17, Maulana Islahi says: “Let it be known that, according to
Islamic jurisprudence, fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty (farz-e-Kifayah), according to the consensus of ulema.”

Maulana’s
entire essay is a call for the Indian Muslims to fight the forces of Hindutva.
But none of you ulema, Maulana Firangimahali Saheb, have refuted Maulana Abdul
Aleem Islahi, as you have not denounced Dr. Zakir Naik or Maulana Salman Nadvi.
Not even when it became known that Maulana Islahi had inspired the Indian
Mujahedin group. Perhaps your problem is that you cannot, as you yourself cannot
but believe in what Maulana Islahi says. What Maulana Islahi or Zakir Naik are
saying is primarily based on the current theology, the theology that you all
have studied and teach in your madrasas and universities. How you can you
condemn that.

The most
authoritative book of Islamic jurisprudence to date, Al-Mausu’ah
al-fiq-hiyah al-Kuwaitiyyah(Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Islamic Jurisprudence), prepared in Kuwait
by a consensus of ulema from all schools of thought, after nearly
half-a-century’s effort, and whose Urdu version was released on 23 October 2009 by Vice President Hamid Ansari
in Delhi, defines Jihad thus: “Terminologically, Jihad means to fight against a
non-Zimmi unbeliever (a kafir who is not paying jizya to an Islamic
State), after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order to establish or
raise high the words of Allah.”

Clearly,
the consensus Maulana Islahi claims for his Islam supremacism, exclusivism and
xenophobia is not wrong. Making Islam dominant over all other religions is
indeed the goal of all ulema, past and present. All the intolerance and
xenophobia of political Islam flows from there. It’s only when one studies
these theological tomes one can see that it is not possible for you ulema to
refute your Jihadi ideologues in any meaningful way. Making dishonest, false
statements of peace and pluralism to the non-Muslim media is also allowed under
the Doctrine of Taqaiyya mainly derived from the Quranic verse: 3:28: “Let not
the believers take the disbelievers as auliya
(supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that
will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless he does it out of fear or taqaiyah (pious dissimulation). And
Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment) and to Allah is the final
return.” This doctrine used to be mainly part of Shia jurisprudence, but it
seems Sunnis have also adopted it under the onslaught of global media that is
now asking informed questions.

Nothing
is thus going to change, unless all you ulema are prepared to move forward from
your present position, renounce the theology of violence and exclusivism,
intolerance and supremacism, that exists today in the form of Islamic
theological literature and help us ordinary folk evolve a new theology of peace
and pluralism. Islam is undoubtedly a religion of peace and pluralism, love for
all and spiritualism. It does indeed teach harmonious co-existence. But Islamic
theology of today, as taught in madrasas and universities, doesn’t. The
theology that you ulema have studied and teach to our hapless children is a
theology of supremacism. Islam is in crisis today. It has become practically
synonymous with terrorism.

Wake up, Maulana Firangimahali Saheb, and start taking
remedial action at least now. If you can’t do that, at least stop deceiving the
world through your peaceful pronouncements. We are now living in a world of
internet. Scholarship is available on fingertips. Everyone is a scholar. You
can’t hide anything.

The Islamic State is making
efforts to recruit Indian youths to carry out terror attacks in Iraq, Syria and
even within India

To
tell you the truth, you are not deceiving any one, not the least our children
who are running away to the so-called Islamic State, even when you call it the
“un-Islamic State.” Intelligent, educated, they all know the truth. You recite
peaceful Meccan verses of pluralism, co-existence, good-neighbourliness,
exhortations of patience in times of adversity, etc., in your appearances on
television or when forced to issue a fatwa against terrorism. But you teach in
your madrasas, tafasir
(interpretations) of Quran like, say, the Tafsir Jalalain, considered one of
the most authentic. It explains the Doctrine of Abrogation, widely accepted by
ulema, whereby peaceful Meccan verses are said to have been abrogated by the
later Medinan verses of war. By and large the doctrine is based on the following
verse of the Quran: 1: 106, in which God says: “None
of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute
something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all
things?”

The
so-called sword verse alone, according to Jalalain, abrogates no less than 19
Meccan verses exhorting peace and patience in the face of persecution. This Verse
(Quran 9:5) says: “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever
you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for
them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to
go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

One
of the Jalals, Jalal al-Din 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505) interprets 9:73 (O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and
the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched
is the destination) as a
case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. His argument is that “when
Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.” Another revered
Quran exegete, taught in all madrasas and departments of Islamic studies in
universities, is Ibn-e-Kathir(1301-1372). He says that the sword
verse (Quran 9: 5) "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet
and any idolater, every treaty, and every term...” Similarly, Ibn Juzayy (d.
1340), another respected Qur'an exegete says: The Verse of the Sword's purpose
is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an.""

Then
there are ahadith (plural of hadith, so-called sayings of the Prophet pbuh)
that terror ideologues use to justify terror and you Maulana Firangimahali and your
fellow ulema consider akin to revelation.

Take,
for instance, the most widely quoted hadith in this context: "I have
been commanded to fight all mankind till they testify that there is none worthy
of worship but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they
establish prayer perfectly and pay zakat. If they do this, they have protected
their lives and their wealth from me except for Islamic laws and
their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.”

--- Sahih Bukhari
(Vol.1. Book 2, Number 24, page 402)
as well as (Sahih Muslim, 31:5917), the two books of Hadith considered the most
reliable and authentic by all ulema.

My problem with this Satanic Hadith is: Can the
prophet (pbuh) do or say something against the express exhortations of the Holy
Quran, as he seems to be doing in this case, violating the universal
declaration of Quran, quoted above, Quran 2: 256; “La ikraha fiddin,” (Let there be no
compulsion in religion) and many other similar Meccan verses of peace,
pluralism and co-existence, teaching Muslims to be patient while facing
persecution? I would say, NO, the Prophet can never do or say
anything that violates universal declarations of the Quran, which is the word
of God revealed to him.

But you Maulana Firangimahali and your fellow ulema
would say the following: “this hadith (“saying” of the prophet) is as good as a
revelation and since it came, like similar war-time verses, later than the
previous universal declarations of freedom of religion, pluralism and
co-existence, it has abrogated not only the above but many other peaceful
verses revealed earlier at Mecca when the foundation of the religion of Islam
was being laid.” You all will say this
because all the universally revered exegetes of Quran say the same thing,
except Mu’tazilah (rationalist) scholars like Abu Muslim Al-Asfahani. You read
these secondary Islamic literature, the exegeses and interpretations by Ibn
Jarir al-Tabari, (Jamie Al-Bayan: 7/646), Ibn-e-Kathir (1/207 and 2/774), Jalalain
(51 mention of abrogation in numerous places in Tafsir al-Jalalain), Al-Qurtubi
(Al-Jamie Li Ahkam Al-Quran 10/157), etc., believe in these analyses and exegeses
unquestioningly, and teach this in your madrasas. Tafseer Ibn Katheer:

Do
you know how many children in India have started calling their parents kafir?
And for good reason. On the one hand you teach the children Jihad in the sense of Qital against
all infidels and polytheists (kuffar and
Mushrikeen) and on the other ask them to practice peace
and pluralism, and co-exist with the same kuffar
and Mushrikeen. Please be honest, call
for war against the so-called infidels and idol-worshippers, as Maulana Abdul
Aleem Islahi, Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and other Jihadi ideologues do, or
renounce your theology of violence and supremacism and let us common Muslims evolve
a new and coherent theology of peace and pluralism, co-existence and acceptance
of all religions as valid paths to eternal salvation.

Yours
Sincerely,

A
concerned Muslim

---

Sultan Shahin is the Founding
Editor of a Delhi-based, multilingual, progressive Islamic website
NewAgeIslam.com. He considers Islam a spiritual path to eternal salvation, one
of the many, not a political ideology of world-domination.

Note:
A version of this article appeared first in Daily Mail, London and Mail Today,
New Delhi on 5 August, 2016

After approximately
a quarter-century fending off radicalism, it is tragic we remain obstinately
blind to the main factor that in fact drives the recruitment support that
terrorist networks need to succeed: radical wahhabi ideology and takfirism.

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi - 9/7/2016 8:13:31 AM

To Abdulla: I appreciate your personal opinion on food habits.

But many people earth eat diet by relgious practice, vegetarian in India has lots of varieties and guided by relgion, so your personal opinion can be valid to you and like minded people like you who bring do not relgion in food matter, but lot others will like too than we should appreciate their opinion.

Vegetarianism and veganisim in west is not base on relgion as you are saying but is more about understanding and suffering of other animals who cannot express their concern in word form.

Same western world eat all kind of meat, without bringing relgion.

I gave all view points in regards eating food, it is my personal opinion to consider all equal and valid points as long as it does not hurt human sentiments.

Here I have disregarded animal sentiments, which personally I do care, but I will put humans sentiments above animals.

By Aayina - 8/29/2016 1:33:34 AM

Aayina: I don't appreciate involvement of religion in the matters of food habits, clothing, likes or dislikes as these things depend upon the availability, Necessity, climate and culture as well. When religion is involved, people start practicing undesirable things or suppress people's individual and natural rights. There are certain impractical practices in Islam in the present time scenario which used to be allowed in early Islam. We should go with the applicability of the matters not just because it is allowed in the religions. By Abdullah - 8/27/2016 11:33:50 AM

To

Abdulla

"Muslim Bhaiyo eat as much as you want”, you can disagree its up-to you.

I said eat as much you want it cab be Zero or everyday diet, did your paigamber said in similar way( that my interpretation and understanding of hadees) he did not said no to eat but give scientific approach of what happens in eating cows meat and he leave the matter to his follower, I said similar fashion.

Especially is used word muslims because

hindus unnecessary target the muslims in matter of their diet, I know lots of hindus who eat cow meat in secret so do muslims eating pork in secret.

our hindu hypocrite brothers will not pick hindus even if I write "Hindus eat as much you want" they will certainly pick only muslims and Muslims eating beef.

Rest as you said indians by nature was nothing eat too much meat and was taking care of animals very well, which is diminishing in since last 50 years after the urbanization and industrialization and taking to much land for human population accommodation and not leaving for other creatures to live in peace.

By Aayina - 8/27/2016 4:37:48 AM

Aayina: You said, “Muslim Bhaiyo eat as much as you
want”. It was a sarcastic statement, as it is not in your command to permit
someone or a community to perform any action or even in my command or anybody
else. We live in a democratic country, which has the best constitution to
command and guide us, so there is no other authority beyond it.

If
permission to do anything has been granted by our constitution, nobody has any
right to put obstacle in the citizens’ choices, likes and dislikes. What I believe and have seen since long that
not only milk-feeding animals, but all living beings are looked after and
protected by our countrymen except some selfish people who can not see beyond
their interests.

I agree to the rest of your
points. Thanks! By Abdullah - 8/27/2016 2:12:47 AM

To Abdulla

Doodh Mata.....And Meat Mata....

I do not personally care what people eat, meat or plant base food, I am oppose of use of relgion to hurt sentiments of others community that is it.

That is reason I said to Muslim Bhaiyo eat as much as you want.

You have raise issue of selling the cow, that I have known and question to our family members and farmers about this many time when I was kid, I had not develope awareness(Shaour) that I was Hindu, I asked question that why cow should be sell when we have used her for many years, now if she is old, we should not nurture her, now it is our turn, but our Hindu community was selling it to butcher, so it is not new for me your issue of Hindu, behaviour.

I have written in some previous comment, I will repeat it again, our Indian state(their may be exception) Rajesthan which is having very low water avibality, people of this state take care of cows very well, they nurture them even after they do not give milk, Hindu and Muslims both, this is witness case, but this people are not so called Mordern educated like me and you who will try to prove which side of community is wrong, they follow their heart and even they find solution through relgion it will be accepted by both community sentiments.

Likewise Muslims who do not want to hurt his fellow Hindu brothers(not all Hindus who are selling) will quote Piagmber Hadees of cow, where he says try to avoide cow meat.

Now the Muslim who want to hurt Hindu will follow Shah Walillulla, who said hurt the Hindu sentiments by eating cow meat.

Similarly Hindu will hurt Muslim sentiments taking away their wright of eating cow by saying that cow is our Mata and will beat up some Muslims and will remain shun on issue of selling cow Hindu or cow on streets vulnerable Finding plastic bags to eat when get old.

So it is upto individual how to follow, it only became problem at comminuty level.

The issue going India at higher level, is make cow meat available easily in India itself, so this multinationals can sell to Indian public to eat easily, it more than about Hindu and Muslim, which majority of Hindus and Muslims will be not even understand.

India was not having butchery business as factory, people were eating cow or any other animal when they want it was not everyday diet (not for even Arabs)it was introduced when British came open butcher where they were having military base, Hire Muslims to creat wider gap between communities, I have also mentioned census point read it further below in the comment.

It the fool Indians(old sub continents) who not aware of there own history that Muslims kings never use to take census on name of relgion, it is british who introduce column of relgion to give sense of separation, which legacy is still followed uptil now and also followed on only in subcontinent not in western countries.

Abdulla it might be sensible anwer as per your expectation, if not we'll that is only capacity of my language, I am not language expert, even God had give me that gift I will use simple words and sentence for layman to understand.

Remember all our relgion had been always given in common men language but scholars and self declared title like Aalim or Pandit twist it to make not us understand and hijack everthing.

I finish here follow your heart.

By Aayina - 8/26/2016 3:02:40 PM

Aayina: You have gone crazy and lost your reasoning and apprehension otherwise you must have known that it is the 85% Hindu community living in India who nurture and look after the so-called doodh-mata and finally in old age when milk is dried up, sell to the butchers - all religions - who sell their every part for their monitory benefits. These are the hypocrite so-called Doodh-mata-rakchak who are killing them, supplying to other countries in frozen packets and making an issue for the non-sense non-Muslims' vote bank. By Abdullah - 8/26/2016 6:28:29 AM

@Venugopal Bhat islam doesnt own any explation or clarifiation to people like you seems to like hindu fanatic

By Shafeeq Mohammad - 8/25/2016 4:37:07 AM

asking people to read quran & judge islam by that only & refuse to take into account the actions of the muslims starting with the pedo prophet, i think is a clear example of "do as i say not as i do"... but then hardcore theist brains are too indoctrinated & simpleton to even understand this... anyway, nice try to shut up people calling them dogs & all... personally i smile at the person who asks ppl to read the quran & judge... the first night i read that book i had nightmares... anyway, to each his own imaginary bronze tribal deity... bye bye... By Shahev Sen - 8/25/2016 4:16:40 AM

it's religion of peace. who accept "live in peace" and who deny "rest in peace". that is only fact. By Sharma Shruti - 8/25/2016 4:09:17 AM

Hasan Faraz

I am still waiting for your out right condemnation of the evil preaching of ARMED JIHAD in whatever way against people belonging to other religion.

By Venugopal Bhat - 8/25/2016 4:01:12 AM

@Hasan Faraz

This is called selective Amnesia...

The same scientist are saying Islam is a threat to world peace.

The same scientist say Islam is the inspiration and motivation for global terrorism. Whatever the reasons are.

As far as conversion is concern every conversion is forced conversion...

Forced by marriage

Forced by the greed for charity

Forced by a particular circumstance

Forced by particular situation

and many more

Only stupid person can preach or propagate conversion , unless he has psychological problem of hate towards other religion and Gods.........

its impossible to preach or propagate conversion without abusing disrespecting or insulting the other religion and Gods.

There is no need to convert a person to a particular religion to teach how to live life happily and peacefully....

Only a religion and its followers who have a problem of superiority complex will preach conversion. This is a psychological disorder.

(You will not find a single ancient Hindu ritual or text for conversion)

Ha Ha Ha LOL

As far as rape is concern we believe in helping and protecting the victim and punishing the culprit .....

Only Islamic law stones the victim and protects the culprit by claiming a victim should bring a witness with her when some one is about to rape her .

And Islamic countries are sill following this law .....

What can we expect from a preacher who recommend sex with a 9 year old child.

By Venugopal Bhat - 8/25/2016 3:59:19 AM

What a mentality of Islam's followers... Hates others religion but they have barbaric laws of their own By Narayan Sarmah - 8/25/2016 3:56:29 AM